Author: TSA Press

Like
all
Biglaw
firms,
Kirkland
&
Ellis
pours
resources
into
its
pro
bono
efforts.
And
though
attorneys
have
an
opportunity
to
expand
their
legal
acumen
through
the
program,
its
not
everyday
attorneys
get
to
actually
bond
with
their
clients.

One
of
Kirkland’s
pro
bono
clients
is

The
Brave
House.
It’s
a
NYC-based
non-profit
that
works
with
immigrant
and
refugee
girls
and
young
women,
with
a
focus
on
survivors
of
gender-based
violence.
They
use
a
holistic
model
that
offers
free
legal
aid,
educational
and
job
advocacy,
leadership
training,
mental
health
services,
and
community
events—all
within
a
safe
and
supportive
environment
built
on
friendship,
resilience,
and
trust.
Last
month,
the
firm
hosted
an
event
to
bring
together
the
members
of
Brave
House
and
the
attorneys
that
work
on
their
behalf.

The
event
was
a
signature
of
The
Brave
House
—
called

I
Know
Her,
that’s
designed
to
make
networking
events
fun.

One
of
our
signature
programs,

I
Know
Her,
is
a
fun
and
inclusive
networking
event
designed
to
make
networking
approachable
and
accessible.
The
evening
includes
a
hands-on
training
session
followed
by
guided
activities
such
as
speed-dating,
discussion
groups,
and
a
platform
where
our
members
can
get
on
the
mic
and
ask
for
connections,
advice,
or
mentorship
to
help
achieve
their
goals.
Networking
is
a
skill
that
isn’t
typically
taught,
so
we
aim
to
provide
a
welcoming
space
where
members
can
learn
concrete
strategies,
practice
them,
and
connect
with
our
network
of
volunteers
who
are
eager
to
give
back.

I
attended
the
November
14th
event,
and
I
have
to
say
—
it
was
actually
a
good
time.
Networking
often
feels
like
a
necessary
evil
for
professional
growth,
but
the
folks
at
Brave
House
turned
the
concept
on
its
head
and
made
everyone
feel
welcome.

Victoria
J.
Ryan,
Partner
at
Kirkland
and
Brave
House
Board
Member,
said,
“It’s
such
a
unique
opportunity
for
us
as
attorneys
to
get
to
know
our
pro
bono
clients
in
a
new,
more
personal
way
by
hosting
the
Brave
House
and
its
members
for
this
event.
It’s
so
important
to
engage
with
our
neighbors
here
in
New
York
City
and
I
am
grateful
to
be
able
to
work
with
The
Brave
House
and
share
that
relationship
with
my
colleagues
at
Kirkland
&
Ellis.”

While
Lauren
Blodgett,
Executive
Director
&
Founder
of
The
Brave
House,
noted
how
special
the
event
was,
“Hosting

I
Know
Her
at
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
one
of
our
dedicated
pro
bono
partners,
was
especially
meaningful.
Many
of
our
members
are
aspiring
lawyers
or
are
interested
in
legal
careers,
and
this
event
allowed
them
to
practice
networking
in
a
space
directly
aligned
with
their
dreams.
It’s
an
honor
and
joy
to
connect
our
members
with
tailored,
dignified
resources
like
these,
and
we
look
forward
to
creating
more
opportunities
like
this
in
the
future.
If
you’re
interested
in
partnering
with
us,
we’d
love
to
hear
from
you!”

If
you’re
interested
in
spending
some
of
your
hard-earned
bonus
money
supporting
this
worth
cause
on
Giving
Tuesday,
you
can

do
so
here.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Dinesh
D’Souza
has
made
a
career
out
of
loathsomeness.

From
his
days
at
Dartmouth
College
where
he
gleefully

outed
gay
students
in
the
conservative
newsletter,
to

taunting
the
survivors
of
the
Parkville
School
shooting
on
Twitter
that
the
failure
of
an
assault
weapons
ban
was
“the
worst
news
since
their
parents
told
them
to
get
summer
jobs,”
D’Souza
has
monetized
trolling
with
spectacular
success.
He
even
managed
to
get
himself
indicted
in
the

dumbest
straw
donor
scheme
ever,
parlaying
his

guilty
plea
into
a
career
as
a
professional
martyr
of
the
Obama
administration,
with
an
eventual
Trump
pardon.

Aside
from
that
little
campaign
finance
hiccup,
D’Souza
went
through
life
spewing
lies
and
vitriol
with
virtually
no
negative
consequences.

Well,
there
was
that
time
he
got

un-presidented
from
King’s
College
after
shacking
up
at
a
Christian
conference
with
a
lady
who
was
not
his
wife
and
introducing
her
as
his
fiancee.
But
other
than
that!

And
so
it
probably
never
occurred
to
D’Souza
that
putting
out
a
“documentary”
purporting
to
prove
that
a
vast
network
of
“ballot
mules”
took
advantage
of
drop
boxes
to
cast
hundreds
of
thousands
of
fraudulent
votes
in
2020
might
come
back
to
bite
him.

The
film
“2000
Mules”
was
a
spectacularly
boring
89
minutes
of
D’Souza
and
his
wife
squinting
into
a
laptop
and
exclaiming
“Wow!”
over
and
over,
as
two

charlatans
from
the

wingnut
welfare
outfit
True
the
Vote
spewed
jargon
about
geolocation
data.
The
“evidence”
consisted
of
bulk-purchased
cellphone
records
showing
the
same
phones
appearing
near
ballot
dropboxes
repeatedly
—
no
surprise,
since
the
boxes
were
located
in
churches
and
government
buildings
—
interspersed
with
grainy
security
footage
of
the
same
two
guys
casting
their
ballots
on
loop
as
D’Souza
spewed
false
claims
accusing
them
of
being
“mules.”
At
the
end
of
the
movie,
a
previously
skeptical
panel
including

Dennis
Prager,
Charlie
Kirk,
Sebastian
Gorka,
Eric
Metaxas,
and
Larry
Elder
pronounced
themselves
convinced.
And
if
you
can
persuade
that
brain
trust…

The
movie
was
immediately

debunked,
with
the
publisher
Regnery

pulping
the
first
draft
of
the
companion
book
by
D’Souza
after
shipping
because
it
defamed
a
bunch
of
non-profits
by
calling
them
ballot
“stash
houses.”
And
then
in
2022,
D’Souza,
along
with
True
the
Vote,
Regnery,
and
Salem
Media
(which
distributed
the
film)
found
themselves
on
the
pointy
end
of
a
lawsuit
by
one
of
the
supposed
“mules”
whose
image
had
been
used
in
the
film.
Because
it
turned
out
that
Mark
Andrews
was
legally
casting
ballots
for
himself,
his
wife,
and
his
adult
children
who
lived
at
home
with
him.
And
five
minutes
after
D’Souza
showed
his
face,
Andrews
and
his
family
started
getting
harassed
by
people
who
believed
he’d
stolen
the
election
for
Biden.

Judge
Stephen
Grimberg,
a
Trump
appointee
to
the
Northern
District
of
Georgia,

denied
the
defendants’
motion
to
dismiss
in
September
of
2023,
and
discovery
seems
to
have
concentrated
the
mind
of
some
parties.
In
May,
Salem
tapped
out,
putting
out
a

statement
apologizing
for
“the
hurt
the
inclusion
of
Mr.
Andrews’
image
in
the
movie,
book,
and
promotional
materials
have
caused
Mr.
Andrews
and
his
family.”
They
promised
to
take
the
movie
out
of
distribution
and
keep
Andrews’
name
out
of
their
mouths
in
perpetuity,
after
which
they
were
dropped
from
the
suit.

And
now
D’Souza
himself
has
decided
that
being
sued
is
no
fun
at
all.

“We
recently
learned
that
surveillance
videos
used
in
the
film
may
not
have
actually
been
correlated
with
the
geolocation
data,”
he

admitted
on
his
media
company’s
website
earlier
this
week,
blaming
True
the
Vote
entirely
for
the
mixup.

“I
know
that
the
film
and
my
book
create
the
impression
that
these
individuals
were
mules
that
had
been
identified
as
suspected
ballot
harvesters
based
on
their
geotracked
cell
phone
data.
While
all
of
these
individuals’
images
were
blurred
and
unrecognizable,
one
of
the
individuals
has
since
come
forward
publicly
and
has
initiated
a
lawsuit
over
the
use
of
his
blurred
image
in
the
film
and
the
book,”
he
said.
“I
owe
this
individual,
Mark
Andrews,
an
apology.”

That
was

not
entirely
accurate, if
you
can
even
believe
it.
The
film
itself
blurred
Andrews’
face
and
license
plate,
but
the
promotional
clips
aired
on
Tucker
Carlson’s
Fox
Show
and
Charlie
Kirk’s
broadcast
were
not.

D’Souza
defended
“the
accuracy
of
the
general
proposition
of
‘2000
Mules,’”
insisting
that
“a
leading
Democratic
organizer,”
had
recently
“admitted
to
an
undercover
journalist
that
the
premise
of
‘2000
Mules’
is
accurate.”
The
organizer
is
not
named,
and
the
link
to
this
supposed
admission
is
not
included.
Nor
did
he
explain
why
Democrats
failed
to
fire
up
the
fraud
cannon
in
2024,
if
they
were
so
successful
the
last
time
around.

D’Souza
concludes
by
insisting
that
the
apology
comes
“not
under
the
terms
of
a
settlement
agreement
or
other
duress,
but
because
it
is
the
right
thing
to
do,
given
what
we
have
now
learned.”

Sure,
thing,
dude.

---

Liz
Dye
lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos

substack and podcast.

Most
of
us
are
familiar
with
the
old
adage,
“Choose
a
job
you
love,
and
you
will
never
have
to
work
a
day
in
your
life.”
Lucky
for
me,
I
love
being
an
attorney.
From
my
very
first
experience
as
a
Biglaw
associate
(over
27
years
ago),
I
knew
with
certainty
that
practicing
law
was
the
right
choice.
However,
early
on,
I
began
to
question
the
personal
sacrifices
that
seemed
to
go
along
with
this
career
path.
I
could
see
the
toll
being
paid
by
those
senior
to
me
–
even
the
equity
partners
–
who
were
in
the
office
until
8
p.m.,
10
p.m.,
or
even
after
midnight
almost
every
night.
The
obvious
lack
of
work-life
balance
was
my
tell-tale,
and
I
decided
to
choose
a
different
path
by
going
in-house.
Imagine
my
reaction,
then,
when
I
realized
that
attorney
burnout
was
also
an
issue
in
that
environment.
As
GC
of
a
public
company,
I
found
myself
working
countless
hours,
taking
calls
well
into
the
night,
and
juggling
the
pressure
to
“do
it
all”
in
the
name
of
cost
savings.
Once
again,
work
was
impacting
other
important
priorities
in
my
life
(especially
my
young
family),
as
well
as
my
well-being
and
enjoyment
of
the
practice
of
law.

Love
the
work,
hate
the
job

Unfortunately,
my
experience
is
not
unique.
For
years
now,
studies
consistently
have
shown
that
the
legal
profession
can
be
grueling
both
for
law
firm
attorneys
and
in-house
legal
teams.
Research
conducted
by
industry
leaders
like
the

International
Bar
Association,

American
Bar
Association,

The
American
Lawyer,

Yale
Law
Professors,

the
Hazelden
Betty
Ford
Foundation,
and
the

Institute
for
Well-Being
in
Law
have
resulted
in
numerous
publications
on
this
topic,
all
of
which
cite
unreasonable
demands,
feelings
of
isolation,
and
a
lack
of
control
over
one’s
personal
life
as
possible
causal
factors,
among
others.
What
is
worse
is
the
fact
that
these
feelings
have
been
tied
to
poor
physical
and
mental
health,
high
rates
of
substance
abuse
and
suicide,
and
decisions
to
abandon
the
profession
entirely.
Industry
leaders
are
taking
notice.
Just
this
year,
the
Association
of
Corporate
Counsel
has
published
a

“Well-Being
Toolkit
for
In-House
Lawyers.”

The
business
impact
of
attorney
burnout
is
equally
troubling.
For
example,
talent
retention
has
become
a
real
challenge
for
law
firms
and
in-house
legal
departments.
When
a
lawyer
decides
to
leave,
the
costs
associated
with
their
departure
are
significant.
Previous
investments
in
their
professional
development
are
essentially
lost,
workload
reassignments
add
further
strain
on
existing
staff,
and
client
work
can
suffer
from
lack
of
continuity.
Although
recent
strides
in
mental
health
awareness
have
made
it
easier
for
attorneys
to
seek
help,
much
has
remained
the
same.
Case
in
point
–
overzealous
billable
hour
requirements
are
still
the
foundation
of
most
traditional
law
firm
business
models,
resulting
in
tremendous
pressure
to
produce
and
to
do
so
perfectly.

Finding
a
way
forward

In
order
to
address
what
ails
the
legal
profession,
change
has
to
come
from
the
top
and
the
culture
has
to
be
wholly
amended.
Fortunately,
innovative
law
firms
like
OGC
have
emerged,
offering
an
appealing
alternative
to
the
traditional
legal
business
model.
When
I
joined
OGC
in
2015,
the
notion
of
work-life
balance
was
not
merely
a
lofty
ideal;
it
was
and
still
is
a
core
value
of
the
firm.
Our
business
model
embodies
this
value
by
allowing
attorneys
to
choose
how
and
when
they
work
(no
billable
hour
demands).
This
autonomy
has
been
a
game-changer;
and,
as
we
say,
it
is
a
big
reason
why
OGC
is
an

Easy
to
Work
For
(#ETWF)
law
firm.

Because
our
attorneys
love
what
they
do

and
are
happy
doing
it,
our
model
also
offers
tremendous
benefits
to
clients.
One
of
these
benefits
is
relief
from
the
burnout
dangers
outlined
above,
which
we
do
by
serving
as
an
additional
resource
that
our
clients’
legal
departments
can
leverage
when
needed
most.
This
is
particularly
valuable
when,
despite
tight
budgets
and
light
staffing,
they
still
need
to
turn
work
around
quickly
and
have
matters
done
right
the
first
time.
That
extra
help
can
make
all
the
difference.
Simply
engaging
us
to
do
what
we
do
best
can
reinvigorate
legal
department
staff.
It
also
enables
our
clients
to
exhibit
(at
least
in
one
significant
way)
a
definitive
commitment
to
maintaining
valuable
wellness
practices,
raising
awareness
of
burnout-related
issues
and
fostering
an
environment
where
attorneys
really
want
to
work,
thereby
helping
them
to
do
their
best
work
while
keeping
that
bottom
line
in
check.

---

A
partner
at
OGC,
Kristin
Kreuder
has
over
25
years
of
experience
working
with
both
public
and
private
companies
of
all
sizes
(from
start-ups
to
well-seasoned
corporate
giants),
as
well
as
individual
entrepreneurs.
She
regularly
handles
a
wide
range
of
legal
matters,
including
the
analysis,
structure,
drafting
and
negotiation
of
a
comprehensive
variety
of
agreements
related
to
commercial
transactions,
M&A,
financing
and
private
equity
transactions,
venture
capital,
licensing,
marketing
and
sponsorship
(including
IP/content/software),
and
general
corporate
issues.

Since
we
broke
the
news
of
the
market
bonus
scale
for
associates
at
large
law
firms
in
the
United
States
—
a
trend
that
was
started
by

Milbank
on
Monday,
November
11,
2024,
and
finally
followed
by

Cravath
on
Tuesday,
November
19,
2024,
including
Milbank’s

special
summer
bonuses
—
firms
are
falling
in
line
to
match
the
scale.
When
will
your
firm
announce
its
bonuses?

Today,
for
your
viewing
pleasure,
we
unveil
a
table
of
all
of
the
firms
that
have
already
matched
the
bonus
scale,
the
date
those
matches
were
made,
the
minimum
hours
required
to
receive
bonuses
(if
available),
and
the
date
bonuses
will
be
paid.
We
will
be
updating
this
table
on
a
daily
basis,
sometimes
multiple
times,
as
news
on
bonuses
unfolds.
If
you
see
any
information
here
that
is
incorrect
or
needs
clarification,
let
us
know.

We
are
covering
this
trend
extensively,
so
please
drop
us
a
line
—
text
(646-820-8477)
or email (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Matches”)
—
when
you
know
of
a
firm
making
a
compensation
move.
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.
Sources
are
kept
confidential.

Don’t
forget,
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts,
please
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
compensation
announcement
that
we
publish.
Cheers
to
a
happy
bonus
and
raise
season,
everyone!

Firm	Date Matched	Minimum Hours	Payout Date
Milbank Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2016: $115K / $25K	FIRST MOVER November 11, 2024	None	On or before December 31, 2024
Vartabedian Hester & Haynes Class of 2024: $15K / $6K Class of 2016: $115K / $25K	November 13, 2024	1800 hours	On or before December 31, 2024
Cravath Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017: $115K / $25K	November 19, 2024	None	December 13, 2024
Paul Hastings Class of 2023: $20K / $6K Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 20, 2024	2000 hours	February 14, 2025
Ropes & Gray Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2016+: $130K / $25K	November 20, 2024	1900 creditable hours (increased bonuses for associates who annualized above hourly target)	December 24, 2024
McDermott Will & Emery Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 20, 2024	2000 hours (merit bonuses available for eligible associates; “two-thirds” of associates will see bonuses above market)	December 27, 2024
Cleary Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 21, 2024	None	December 20, 2024
Paul Weiss Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 21, 2024	None	December 20, 2024
Dechert Class of 2023: $20K / $6K Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 21, 2024	1950 hours (client billable, pro bono, firm as client, maximum of 50 community hours); associates who exceeded hours expectations eligible to receive an “extraordinary” bonus (i.e., 2200 hours = addt’l 30%; 2400+ hours = addt’l 40%)	By or before end of January 2025
O’Melveny Class of 2024: $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 21, 2024	None	Undisclosed
Holwell Shuster Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 21, 2024	None	On or before December 31, 2024
Davis Polk Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 22, 2024	None	December 27, 2024
Weil Gotshal Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 22, 2024	None	January 31, 2025
White & Case Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017: $115K / $25K	November 22, 2024	Eligibility criteria detailed in separate memo	February 14, 2025
Skadden Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K or $125K / $25K	November 22, 2024	1800 “productive hours” (including unlimited pro bono time and up to 150 hours of productive non-billable work)	December 13, 2024
Cadwalader Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2016: $115K / $25K	November 22, 2024	Additional bonuses “equal to 120% of [market bonuses]” for high billers with 2200 hours or more	By or before end of February 2025
Proskauer Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2016: $115K / $25K	November 22, 2024	None	On or before December 24, 2024
Schulte Roth & Zabel Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 22, 2024	2000 hours; step-up bonuses from $3K to $51.75K for associates who have made “extraordinary contributions” to the firm)	January 27, 2025
Covington Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 22, 2024	2000 hours; (associates will see a 10% bonus increase at 2200 hours, and another 10% bonus increase 2400 hours)	January 2025
Willkie Farr Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 22, 2024	None	December 31, 2024
Akin Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 22, 2024	1950 hours (including pro bono hours, general counsel hours, business development hours, and up to 100 hours of time spent on recruiting, diversity & inclusion, and/or innovation activities); associates with “exceptional” performance will receive larger bonuses	February 2025
Sidley Class of 2023: $20K / $6K Class of 2016: $115K / $25K	November 25, 2024	2000 hours required for base bonuses; associates with “higher productivity and/or exceptional performance” will receive additional bonuses, up to “more than 50% above base bonus”	Prior to December 31, 2024
Baker Botts Class of 2023: $20K / $6K Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 25, 2024	Based on hours (“enhanced” bonuses available for “exceptional” performance)	Undisclosed
A&O Shearman Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 25, 2024	Undisclosed	Undisclosed
Katten Muchin Class of 2023: $20K / $6K Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 25, 2024	2000 hours (2100 hours for $22K-$126.5K; 2200 hours for $24K-$138K; 2300 hours for $26.5K-$149.5K; 2400 hours for $31K-$172.5K); additional “superstar” bonuses available	February 3, 2025
Vinson & Elkins Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 25, 2024	Based on hours and good standing; “supplemental bonuses” available for associates who had an “exemplary year”	On or about January 31, 2025
Debevoise Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 26, 2024	None	Undisclosed
Clifford Chance Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 26, 2024	None (based on overall performance, quality of work, contributions to firm, teamwork, and pro bono)	January 15, 2025
Mayer Brown Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 26, 2024	2000 hours; associates eligible for addt’l bonuses based on performance	February 28, 2025
Gibson Dunn Class of 2024: $15K / $6K (prorated) Class of 2017: $115K / $25K	November 27, 2024	Undisclosed	Undisclosed
Seward & Kissel Class of 2023: $20K / $6K Class of 2017+: $115K / $25K	November 27, 2024	2000 hours (1850 billable hours and 150 qualified non-billable hours); 2200 hours for special bonus (1850 billable hours and 150 qualified non-billable hours; associates who “substantially” exceed the eligibility requirements for special bonuses may receive an “increased” special bonus)	First quarter of 2025
Fish & Richardson Entry-Level: $15K / $6K (prorated) A7: $115K / $25K	November 27, 2024	2100 hours (including up to 200 pro bono/DEI/pitch hours) or strongest reviews based on quality of work	December 26, 2024
Wilkinson Stekloff Class of 2024: $22.5K / $6K Class of 2017: $172.5K / $25K	December 3, 2024	None	By December 13, 2024

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

Bluesky,

X/Twitter,
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

---

---

What’s
better
than
your
firm
matching
Milbank?
Going
over
the
top!
Wilkinson
Stekloff
is
doubling
down
on
spreading
the
wealth
by
adding
a
little
extra
onto
their
associates’
base
bonuses.
Pays
to
work
at
a
successful
boutique!
Here’s
the
scale:

For
those
of
you
hesitant
to
break
out
your
magnifying
glasses,
this
is
the
eighth
year
that
Wilkinson
Stekloff
has
offered
higher
bonuses
than
the
market!
As
for
special
bonuses,
they
will
be
matching
Milbank. 

Bonuses
will
be
paid
out
by
December
13th.

We
like
hearing
about
bonuses
almost
as
much
as
you
enjoy
spending
them.
As
soon
as
your
firm’s
memo
comes
out,
please

email
it
to
us

(subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus”)
or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Salary
&
Bonus
Alerts,
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

---

---

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
in
the
article
series,


Cybersecurity:
Tips
From
the
Trenches,
by
our
friends
at

Sensei
Enterprises,
a
boutique
provider
of
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
services.

We
are
nearing
the
end
of
another
year
filled
with
significant
advancements
in
cybersecurity
protections
adopted
by
law
firms
to
combat
the
constant
cyberattacks
they
face.
Law
firms
are
finally
embracing
Endpoint
Detection
and
Response
(EDR)
software,
cybersecurity
awareness
training,
and
phishing
simulations.
The
reality
is
that
the
measurement
of
cybersecurity
protections
can
never
be
genuinely
quantified.
The
primary
reason
is
because
the
goalpost
everyone
aims
for
keeps
moving
farther
and
farther
away
with
each
new
vulnerability
or
attack
method
discovered
or
developed
by
attackers.
The
continually
evolving
and
complex
world
of
cybersecurity
shows
no
signs
of
slowing
down.

More
Governance.

What
else
must
law
firms
endure
besides
constant
cyber
and
phishing
attacks?
How
about
further
governance
regarding
data
privacy?
Law
firms
got
a
taste
of
this
in
2016
with
the
EU’s
passing
of
the
General
Data
Protection
Regulation
(GDPR),
touted
as
the
world’s
strictest
privacy
and
security
law.
The
GDPR
imposes
obligations
on
any
organization
that
targets
or
collects
data
related
to
people
in
the
EU.

The
California
Consumer
Privacy
Act
(CPPA)
went
into
effect
in
January
2020,
providing
residents
of
California
with
greater
control
over
personal
data
collected,
including
the
ability
to
request
a
business
to
delete
any
harvested
personal
information.
This
legislation
applies
to
anyone
who
does
business
in
California
that
meets
certain
thresholds.
That’s
just
California’s
privacy
law.
There
are
now
20
states
that
have
varying
degrees
of
data
privacy
laws.

As
a
result
of
governance,
law
firms
have
adopted
privacy
and
data
collection
policies
to
meet
these
requirements,
including
GDPR
policies
and
popup
notifications
regarding
Cookies
and
the
types
of
data
collected
when
visitors
browse
their
websites.
Failure
to
abide
by
and
comply
with
these
changing
regulations
may
result
in
malpractice
claims,
lawsuits,
or
fines
for
non-compliance.
That
certainly
has
gotten
the
attention
of
many
law
firms.
Suddenly,
law
firms
are
taking
the
long-standing
regulations
seriously,
which
have
largely
been
ignored
in
the
past.

Driven
by
Client
Demand

It’s
not
just
the
cyber
insurance
carriers;
clients
have
also
gotten
smarter
about
data
protection.
Law
firms
commonly
receive
cybersecurity
questionnaires
from
larger
corporations
or
defense
contractors,
which
must
be
completed
before
engaging
with
the
law
firm.
Clients
demand
to
know
what
protections
are
in
place
to
keep
their
data
safe
and,
in
some
instances,
want
proof—not
just
self-attestation.
These
questions
are
very
similar
to
those
asked
by
cyber
insurance
providers.

Some
of
the
cybersecurity
measures
asked
about
by
clients
include:

• Are
  100%
  of
  endpoints
  protected
  by
  “next-gen
  antivirus”
  and
  “EDR”
  software?
• Have
  you
  had
  a
  penetration
  test
  and
  vulnerability
  assessment
  performed
  within
  the
  last
  year,
  and
  if
  so,
  were
  all
  the
  medium,
  high,
  and
  critical
  vulnerabilities
  remediated?
• Are
  your
  information
  systems
  monitored
  by
  a
  Security
  Information
  and
  Event
  Management
  (SIEM)
  solution
  backed
  by
  a
  24/7
  Security
  Operations
  Center?
• Are
  your
  critical
  systems
  backed
  up
  to
  an
  offsite
  location
  protected
  against
  ransomware
  attacks
  or
  infections
  (immutable
  backups)?
• Have
  your
  employees
  attended
  a
  cybersecurity
  awareness
  training
  session
  within
  the
  last
  12
  months?
• Is
  MFA
  required
  for
  access
  to
  all
  firm
  resources?

These
are
some
very
tough
questions
from
clients,
but
they
underscore
the
importance
of
data
protection
and
privacy
from
the
client’s
point
of
view.
Law
firms
that
haven’t
implemented
the
requested
measures
often
use
the
request
as
a
catalyst
for
positive
change
to
implement
the
solutions
before
responding
to
the
questionnaire
and
are
willing
to
take
on
the
cost
to
get
the
client.
It’s
a
win-win.

Risks
of
Litigation

It
was
only
a
matter
of
time
before
the
data
breach
attorneys
showed
up
to
the
party.
 Class
action
lawsuits
have
now
become
a
nightmare
for
law
firms
who
have
suffered
a
data
breach.
Law
firms
are
becoming
subjects
of
class
action
lawsuits,
which
often
tend
to
settle
relatively
quickly
without
the
details
being
outlined
in
court.
Class
action
lawsuits,
expensive
data
breach
notification
requirements,
and
monetary
fines
from
State
Attorney
Generals
for
data
privacy
violations-
what
more
can
be
done
to
drive
the
point
home
about
the
need
for
rigorous
data
security
protections?
For
a
long
period
of
time,
law
firms
hesitated
to
take
on
class
action
lawsuits
against
other
law
firms
which
suffered
data
breaches.
Those
days
are
long
gone.

Mandated
privacy
and
data
protection
are
here
to
stay,
as
are
cyberattacks.
Law
firms
must
remain
proactive
in
adopting
these
measures
which
benefit
the
firm
and
its
clients.
Serious
reviews
of
your
cybersecurity
and
annual
security
changes
mitigate
risk
and
exposure
and
will
keep
class
action
lawsuits
at
bay.
As
an
added
benefit,
you
may
even
get
your
cyber
insurance
carrier
to
lower
your
premium
(or
not
increase
it
as
much
as
they
usually
do)
with
all
the
added
security
measures
you’ve
implemented.

---

Michael
C.
Maschke
([email protected])
is
the
President
and
Chief
Executive
Officer
of
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
Mr.Maschke
is
an
EnCase
Certified
Examiner
(EnCE),
a
Certified
Computer
Examiner
(CCE
#744),
an
AccessData
Certified
Examiner
(ACE),
a
Certified
Ethical
Hacker
(CEH), and
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional
(CISSP).
He
is
a
frequent
speaker
on
IT,
cybersecurity,
and
digital
forensics
and
he
has
co-authored
14
books
published
by
the
American
Bar
Association.

Sharon
D.
Nelson
([email protected])
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
She
is
a
past
president
of
the
Virginia
State
Bar,
the
Fairfax
Bar
Association,
and
the
Fairfax
Law
Foundation.
She
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
ABA.

John
W.
Simek
([email protected])
is
the
co-founder
of
and
consultant
to
Sensei
Enterprises,
Inc.
He
is
a
Certified
Information
Systems
Security
Professional
(CISSP),
a Certified
Ethical
Hacker
(CEH),
and
a
nationally
known
digital
forensics
expert.
He
is
a
co-author
of
18
books
published
by
the
ABA.

Yesterday,
Coinbase
CEO
Brian
Armstrong
announced
on
X
(because
obviously)
that
he’s
planning
to
boycott

Milbank
for
having
“messed
up”
in
hiring
recently
departed
SEC
enforcement
chief

Gurbir
Grewal
as
a
partner
in
its
New
York
office.
While
there
are
warranted
concerns
over
the
revolving
door
between
regulators
and
advising
the
targets
of
those
regulations
—
serious
issues
with
the
potential
impact
of
placing
the
responsibility
to
pursue
bad
actors
upon
people
hoping
to
turn
around
and
work
for
those
same
actors
for
millions
of
dollars
—
trust
that
Armstrong
is
not
interested
in
any
of
those
arguments!
He
just
wants
the
industry
to
punish
Biglaw
firms
for
hiring
anyone
involved
in
the
recent
wave
of
crypto
regulation.

The
crypto
industry
hates
the
SEC
because
the
regulator
routinely
poked
at
the
tension
between
crypto’s
claim
to
be
“just
a
currency”
and
its
marketing
as
a
surefire
investment
to
the
moon
—
the
latter
justification
sounding
an
awful
lot
like
a
security.
Sure,
you

can
use
crypto
as
a
currency
to
launder
money,
but
most
crypto
holders
harbor
no
intention
to
use
it
to
purchase
heroin
off
the
dark
web.

Presumably.

As
the
Venn
diagram
of
crypto
fanatics
and
Elon
Musk
stans
forms
a
perfect
circle,
this
isn’t
a
surprising
announcement.
Armstrong’s
call
is
reminiscent
of
Elon
Musk’s
ultimatum
a
couple
years
ago
that
Cooley
LLC
fire
an
associate
for
having
previously
worked
at
the
SEC
or
lose
Tesla’s
business.

Cooley
told
him
to
pound
sand.

Weird,
because
I
thought

clients
pressuring
firms
to
distance
themselves
from
partners
was
“cancel
culture.”

The
earlier
Musk
story
presents
a
curious
juxtaposition
with
his
current
legal
crusade
that
encouraging
customer
boycotts
of
major
X
advertisers

amounts
to
illegal
tampering
and
that
the
advertisers
then
refusing
to
place
their
ads
on
the
platform

violates
the
Sherman
Antitrust
Act,
if
not

criminal
RICO.

It
seems
the
“free
speech
absolutist”
adheres
to
the
rule
of
“boycotts
for
me
and
not
for
thee.”

Personally,
I’d
advise
Coinbase,
a
crypto
trading
platform,
that
it’s
not
great
optics
to
say
“we
refuse
to
work
with
anyone
who
cracked
down
on
fraudsters
selling
crypto.”
The
New
York
Stock
Exchange
doesn’t
boycott
lawyers
for
busting
Ponzi
schemes
for
a
reason.
A
more
sensible
statement
would
be,
“At
Coinbase,
we
strive
to
ensure
our
users
are
never
scammed
in
the
rapidly
evolving
industry
and
we
welcome
working
with
an
experienced
regulator
who
can
help
advise
us
to
identify
bad
actors.”

But
even
if
Armstrong’s
proposed
boycott
is
stupid,
it’s
entirely
within
his
rights.
It’s
also
within
his
rights
to
encourage
others
in
the
industry
to
join
him
(there’s
a
hypothetical
point
where
this
could
become
anticompetitive
collusion,
but
despite
the
fever
dreams
of
Musk’s
advertising
complaint
—

and
the
sycophants
hyping
it
—
none
of
these
boycotts
approach
that).
The
nature
of
free
speech
and
the
free
market
is
that
you
get
to
spend
your
money
wherever
you
choose
and
if
the
crypto
industry
doesn’t
want
to
work
with
senior
SEC
alumni,
that’s
their
prerogative.

As
long
as
everyone
recognizes
that
door
swings
both
ways.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

The
thing
about
a
second
Trump
presidency
is
we
kinda
know
what
to
expect.
Oh,
for
sure
Donald
Trump
will
be
emboldened
and
will
inevitably
shock
with
the
cruelty
of
some
policy
he
advances.
But
Dems
are
definitely
aware
there’s
a
legal
fight
a-brewin’.
Or,
more
accurately,
several
legal
fights
ahead.

As
such,
California
Governor
Gavin
Newsom
announced
yesterday
he’s
seeking
a
$25
million
litigation
war
chest
from
the
legislature
to

As

reported
by
Reuters:

“The
new
litigation
fund
will
help
safeguard
critical
funding
for
disaster
relief,
health
care,
and
other
vital
services
that
millions
of
Californians
depend
on
daily”,
the
governor
wrote
in
the
proposal.
He
added
the
state
plans
to
“defend
against
unlawful
federal
actions
that
could
jeopardize
not
only
tangible
resources
and
the
state’s
economy”
as
well
as
protection
of
reproductive
health
care
and
civil
rights.

The
fights
could
also
force
the
federal
government
to
pay
needed
funding,
Newsom
said
in
a
statement,
citing
successful
legal
skirmishes
with
the
federal
government
during
the
first
Trump
administration.

And
California
Attorney
General
Rob
Bonta
said
he’d
staff
up
so
the
office
would
be
ready
to
file
restraining
orders
and
injunctions
as
needed.

California
is
doing
what
it
can
to
ready
the
resistance.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

What’s
your
take
on
legal
trade
shows?
Are
they
an
important
way
to
learn
about
the
latest
trends? 

A
valued
opportunity
to
meet
potential
clients? 

Or
an
exhausting
blur
of
tech
talk
and
marketing
speak
that
leaves
you
with
little
but
an
expense
report
and
a
headache?

Whether
you
regularly
attend
trade
shows
or
avoid
them
like
the
plague,
we
want
to
know
what
you
think.
Please
take
our


brief,
anonymous
survey

to
share
your
views. 

Every
so
often,
large
medtech
companies
face
allegations
of
exploiting
physicians’
intellectual
property.
Some
worry
that
this
pattern
threatens
to
stifle
medical
innovation
—
with
large
firms
turning
novel
ideas
into
profits
while
leaving
original
inventors
mired
in
lengthy
legal
battles.

This
month,
yet
another
physician
accused
a
large
industry
incumbent
of
stealing
her
idea.

Hexagon
Health
—
a
hernia
care
company
founded
by
Dr.
Shirin
Towfigh
in
2015
—
is
suing

Medtronic,
alleging
that
the
medical
device
giant
copied
Dr.
Towfigh’s
hernia
mesh
repair
design
and
knowingly
continued
to
sell
the
product
even
after
the
U.S.
Patent
Office
formally
granted
Hexagon
its
patents.

While
it’s
unclear
whether
the
case
will
make
it
to
trial,
the
dispute
highlights
the
struggle
over
who
controls
the
future
of
hernia
care,
as
well
as
who
powers
the
dynamics
that
shape
healthcare
innovation,
lawyers
said. 

What
is
Hexagon
Health?

In
an
interview,
Dr.
Towfigh
said
she
founded
Hexagon
with
the
goal
of
improving
patients’
abdominal
and
pelvic
health.
The
company
seeks
to
address
gaps
in
hernia
care
—
particularly
for
women,
who
have
historically
been
underrepresented
in
research
and
product
development
for
the
condition,
she
noted.

 

Dr.
Towfigh
—
who
remains
a
practicing
surgeon
in
Beverly
Hills
—
said
that
nearly
80%
of
her
work
is
revisional
hernia
surgery.
This
work
inspired
her
to
develop
a
textile
mesh
with
a
fin-like
shape
to
help
prevent
common
complications
that
occur
in
patients
undergoing
hernia
repair
procedures.

Her
designs
are
meant
to
benefit
both
male
and
female
patients.
For
example,
she
believes
her
mesh
designs
improve
treatment
for
men
with
inguinal
hernias
—
a
type
of
hernia
occurs
in
the
groin
area
when
a
part
of
the
intestine
or
bladder
protrudes
through
the
lower
abdominal
wall. 

Traditional
inguinal
hernia
mesh
designs
can
erode
or
obstruct
male
genital
structures,
such
as
the
genital
nerve
and
the
spermatic
cord
and
its
contents,
and
the
genital
nerve,
resulting
in
unwanted
complications
like
painful
intercourse
and
testicular
pain,
Dr.
Towfigh
said.

She
also
noted
that
her
products
benefit
women
because
they
offer
improved
coverage
in
the
femoral
space,
which
is
located
on
the
upper
thigh.
Women
are

10
times
more
likely
than
men
to
develop
femoral
hernia
—
which
is
the
only
type
of
hernia
with
a
significant
risk
of
death
if
misdiagnosed
or
not
treated
in
a
timely
fashion.

Dr.
Towfigh
added
that
her
designs
are
meant
to
reduce
risk
of
damage
caused
by
traditional
hernia
mesh
products
to
women’s
pelvic
floor
muscles,
nerves
and
major
blood
vessels.

Hexagon
began
filing
patents
for
Dr.
Towfigh’s
novel
hernia
mesh
designs
in
2015,
the
same
year
the
company
was
founded.
She
has
since
been
granted
nine
patents,
she
said.

What
does
the
lawsuit
allege?

In
the
complaint
filed
against
Medtronic,
Hexagon
alleged
that
the
medical
device
giant
took
Dr.
Towfigh’s
novel
ideas
and
patented
designs
to
develop
its
product
Dextile. 

The
complaint
also
stated
that
Dr.
Towfigh
spent
six
years
in
conversations
with
Medtronic
to
bring
her
textile
mesh
product
to
market.
It
said
that
the
parties
initially
met
in
2015
and
signed
a
mutual
non-disclosure
agreement.

“I’ve
known
the
Medtronic
company
and
their
people
for
many
years.
It
was
nice
that
they
showed
interest
in
my
product
—
I’ve
been
traveling
all
over
the
world,
meeting
them
in
different
venues
to
get
to
a
point
where
this
mesh
can
come
to
market,”
she
said.

Dr.
Towfigh
said
she
had
several
meetings
with
Medtronic
leadership,
including
a
trip
to
the
company’s
manufacturing
facility
in
France.
The
purpose
of
these
meetings
was
to
discuss
opportunities
for
Medtronic
to
collaborate
with
her
and
her
patent-pending
mesh
product,
she
noted.

But
in
2017,
Medtronic
filed
its
own
patent
for
a
hernia
mesh
product
that
Dr.
Towfigh
thinks
closely
mirrors
her
design.
Medtronic’s
product
has
a
fin-like
shape
aimed
at
reducing
post-surgical
complications
by
ensuring
more
secure
and
stable
placement
during
the
procedure,
similarly
to
Hexagon’s
designs,
the
complaint
said.

In
a
statement
sent
to

MedCity
News,
Medtronic
said
it
is
actively
reviewing
the
case,
noting
that
the
company
“has
a
long
history
of
respecting
the
intellectual
property
rights
of
other
innovators.” 

What
happens
next?

One
lawyer
who
is
not
involved
in
the
case
—
Peter
Sullivan,
patent
attorney
and
co-chair
of
the
PTAB
proceedings
practice
group
at

Foley
Hoag
—
said
Hexagon’s
lawsuit
stood
out
as
an
interesting
case
to
him.
This
is
because
Dr.
Towfigh
is
seeking
not
only
financial
damages
for
the
patent
infringement
—
but
also
to
be
listed
as
an
inventor
for
Medtronic’s
device.

“It’s
actually
not
just
a
patent
infringement
case.
The
doctor
and
her
company
own
patents,
but
they’re
also
seeking
to
be
listed
as
investors
on
the
Medtronic
patents,”
Sullivan
remarked.
“That’s
a
wrinkle
you
don’t
normally
see.”

He
also
said
that
he
thinks
the
complaint
makes
a
compelling
case
for
not
just
patent
infringement
—
but
also
outright
copying.

“With
infringement
you
don’t
actually
have
to
take
anything.
You
just
have
to
have
something
that’s
like
someone
else’s
stuff
—
you
can
be
working
completely
independently.
But
in
this
case,
there
was
a
lot
of
crossing
—
business
discussions
about
this
new
kind
of
mesh
that
would
be
an
improvement
over
what
the
state
of
the
art
was.
I
think
that
that
makes
this
a
little
more
interesting,
especially
more
interesting
to
a
jury.
Ultimately
people
want
to
have
a
compelling
story
for
copying,
not
just
infringement,”
he
explained.

Sullivan
thinks
the
case
will
likely
go
through
a
couple
of
phases.
The
first
phase
will
probably
be
that
Medtronic
moves
to
invalidate
Hexagon’s
patents,
he
said. 

When
a
company
is
accused
of
violating
a
patent,
a
typical
defense
is
to
argue
that
the
patent
should
never
have
been
granted
in
the
first
place,
Sullivan
explained.
These
disputes
are
typically
handled
by
the
Patent
Trial
and
Appeal
Board
(PTAB),
and
if
the
reviewers
decide
to
invalidate
the
patent,
the
infringement
claim
is
moot.

But
even
if
Hexagon’s
patents
do
get
invalidated,
the
case
could
still
go
forward,
Sullivan
pointed
out.
Dr.
Towfigh
is
seeking
to
be
listed
as
an
inventor
for
Medtronic’s
product,
and
this
is
a
separate
claim,
he
stated.

Sullivan
noted
that
it’s
too
early
to
predict
whether
this
case
will
go
to
trial.

“How
a
jury
thinks
about
this
will
depend
on
what’s
left
of
the
case
when
they
finally
get
to
it
—
it’s
a
defendant’s
job
is
to
whittle
away
at
all
the
claims,
to
see
what
could
be
limited,
what
can’t
be,
and
go
from
there.
But
I
think
that
it’s
not
the
typical
infringement
case
—
you
had
this
active
collaboration
going
on,
and
I
think
that’s
something
that
will
be
helpful
for
the
plaintiffs
if
they
ultimately
get
to
a
jury,”
he
remarked.

What
does
this
mean
for
physicians?

Dr.
Towfigh
pointed
out
that
her
experience
with
Medtronic
makes
her
feel
wary
of
large
incumbents
and
their
ability
to
help
physicians
bring
innovative
ideas
to
market.

“There’s
a
sacred
relationship
between
physicians
and
industry
—
especially
surgeons,
since
we
are
at
the
patient
level.
We’re
the
ones
who
are
operating,
and
we’re
the
ones
who
see
where
there’s
good
and
bad
and
where
there
can
be
improvements
in
products,”
she
declared.

Without
industry
partners,
it
can
be
difficult
for
sole
physicians
to
make
an
impact,
Dr.
Towfigh
noted.

“I
think
most
of
us
surgeons
don’t
really
understand
that
there
are
situations
where
you
can
have
excellent
ideas
and
pitch
them
and
do
everything
right
—
you
got
your
patent
filed
and
you
got
your
NDAs
—
and
yet,
there
are
possibilities
where
there
can
still
be
a
case
of
infringement,”
she
explained.

Dr.
Towfigh
added
that
she
thought
a
large,
publicly
traded
company
like
Medtronic
would
adhere
to
“higher
ethical
standards.” 

When
asked
to
respond
to
Dr.
Towfigh’s
remarks,
Medtronic
opted
not
to
provide
further
commentary.

Dr.
Towfigh
said
her
main
concern
is
that
in
the
future,
surgeons
with
innovative
ideas
will
not
be
able
to
trust
major
companies
enough
to
divulge
their
ideas.
Her
lawyer
agreed. 

“Medtronic’s
improper
use
of
Hexagon
Health’s
hernia
mesh
designs
has
cost
Dr.
Towfigh
significant
financial
gain
and
created
a
disincentive
for
other
physician-entrepreneurs
to
enter
the
medical
device
marketplace
with
innovative
products
for
patients
in
need,”
Nicholas
Groombridge,
Hexagon’s
attorney
and
partner
at
Groombridge,
Wu,
Baughman
&
Stone
LLP,
said
in
a

statement.
“Medtronic
has
a
history
of
infringing
patents
and
failing
to
honor
agreements
with
physician-inventors,
and
we
look
forward
to
addressing
this
matter
in
court.” 

Dr.
Towfigh’s
case
is
not
the
first
time
Medtronic
has
come
under
fire
for
alleged
patent
infringement. 

For
instance,
pediatric
orthopedic
and
scoliosis
surgeon
Dr.
Mark
Barry
sued
Medtronic
in
2014,
alleging
that
the
company
infringed
on
two
of
his
patents
for
spinal
devices.
Dr.
Barry

won
$23.5
million
when
a
federal
judge
ruled
that
Medtronic
had
copied
his
technology.

Also
in
2014,
Medtronic

agreed
to
pay
more
than
$1
billion
to
settle
a
patent
dispute
with
Edwards
Lifesciences,
which
alleged
that
Medtronic’s
CoreValve
product
was
violating
the
patent
for
its
transcatheter
heart
valve.
And
just
last
year,
a
jury
ordered
Medtronic
to

pay
$106.5
million
to
medical
device
company
Colibri
Heart
Valve
as
the
result
of
another
patent
infringement
case.

Another
patent
lawyer
said
this
type
of
infringement
is
nothing
new.

“Unfortunately,
large
technology
companies
ripping
off
inventions
of
physicians
is
all
too
common,”
said
Andrew
Bochner,
managing
partner
at

Bochner
PLLC.

Bochner
currently
represents
NYU
Langone
cardiologist
Joseph
Wiesel
in
a

federal
court
case
accusing
Apple
of
using
his
patented
atrial
fibrillation
monitoring
tool
in
its
Apple
Watch
without
permission.
Apple
has
delayed
the
case
by
filing
multiple
petitions
to
invalidate
Dr.
Wiesel’s
patent,
he
said.

When

discussing
his
client’s
case
with

MedCity
News
earlier
this
year,
Bochner
noted
that
Apple’s
multiple
patent
invalidation
attempts
were
part
of
the
company’s
plan
to
battle
“tooth
and
nail”
in
order
to
wear
out
its
rivals
with
fewer
resources. 

He
noted
that
large
companies
in
the
tech
and
medtech
spaces
employ
these
tactics
because
most
physicians
or
small
companies
can’t
afford
to
keep
up
with
the
litigation. 

For
Dr.
Towfigh
and
other
physician-innovators,
this
lawsuit
underscores
a
broader
challenge:
ensuring
that
the
next
big
medical
breakthrough
is
protected,
not
co-opted.

Photo:
wildpixel,
Getty
Images